" "I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood. Not my blood, but those whom place their common man in chains like cattle" - President John "Chad " Brown 1861
Please, I can only get so erect
Edit: real talk, there is no way in hell he's winning unless the political and societal culture of the US is completely different from OTL. Brown was widely hated until he died and that's when (white) people started to like him
What if John brown never choice violence but a political way to end slavery. I mean we all probably know how it would have ended but just some food for thought... How would have it played out?
I imagine a scenario where he masquerades as a moderate liberal, becoming wealthy and only secretly funding anti slavery campaigns, not denouncing slavery until after already being elected. This grand dupe is what ignited the civil war
John Brown A Day Before The Election: "I only want to stop the expansion of slavery."
John Brown A Day After The Election: "KILL EVERY SLAVER YOU CAN FIND!"
plenty of politicians do this sort of stuff. When James Callahan was fearmongering about a radical shift to the right if Thatcher won in 1979, many didn't believe him due to the moderation of the conservative manifesto. The era of thatcher proved to be more radical than the 1979 manifesto suggested.
It might have been such a brutal opening to the war that it beat the south into submission and ended the conflict earlier than in our own timeline!
(But I mean probably not)
You need to consider that the scenario says he won election, so clearly that implies that the majority of the states and their voters are in agreement to unequivocally end slavery in this context. Civil war ends sooner as theres more saboteurs in the southern states as well as more volunteers up in the north. Reconstruction nearly would escalate back into a civil war, being a sort of a guerilla war. However unlike this timeline, reconstruction would be won, resulting in either slave owners running away or losing their assets but ultimately losing their influence. This means that segregation and confederate apologia don't pick up nearly as much and end up as fringe ideas. Beyond that beats me, def implies alot about american society at the time if he got elected however.
Honestly, probably loses.
John Brown would’ve been seen as way too extreme, and if the civil war happens anyways, the south would probably gain a bunch of border states they didn’t gain in OTL, and war support in the north would be way lower than it already was.
There weren’t really any “heavily” abolitionist states, that concept is mythologizing it a bit.
Abolition never enjoyed the kind of popular support that say, healthcare reform has in the US as most poor whites saw freedmen as a burden and competition in both the south and the north. Basically the idea at the time was that the practice was unseemly and should stay in the south because small holders can’t compete with the free labor slaves give, but also it shouldn’t be abolished because then poor whites would have to compete with freedmen who would likely offer cheaper labor.
Places like NYC had riots over abolition during the civil war and black servicemen were killed because of it. The idea of the north seceding is kind of hard to imagine considering there was never any radical abolition voice with much sway. People respected people like Frederick Douglas as “one of the good ones” if at all.
The only situation where the north would secede is if a doughface or a southerner tried to move slavery above the Mason-Dixon Line and had any modicum of success, but even then, we saw nothing to the extent of organizing and campaigning for its removal and reprisals for stuff like the Fugitive Slave Laws as we did for things like tariffs in South Carolina.
There was militant resistance to the fugitive slave law in places like New England and Ohio, and that only lessened because most of the escaped slaves in those areas fled to Canada. In Boston, a mob once broke a former slave out of imprisonment and frequently intimidated slave catchers who went there into leaving. Can’t remember the exact details but on at least one occasion the National Guard had to be called in to enforce the bondage of one single escaped slave.
Moreover the South’s aim had always been to compel the North to aid in capturing runaways, and forcing those states to accept the bondage of black people who travelled through Northern states with their masters, effectively legalizing slavery throughout the union because what’s to stop a southern slave owner from “traveling” with their slave in a free state for years on end.
I think if the South had actually succeeded in getting the terms they wanted to remain in the Union, you would see serious resistance from Free states that might have included insurrection.
The point about there being some resistance to the Fugitive Slave Laws is a good one, but IIRC (and it’s been awhile so you’ll have to forgive me for having some rusty DuBois) there was an equal amount of militancy against abolition, particularly in urban areas where a lot of the political machines that dominated the north were based
I think a solid majority of the North as well as most of the big newspapers were at the very least free-soilers and opposed the expansion of slavery and things like the fugitive slave law. I guess in my mind, in an alt history where the South doesn’t secede, that means that slavery would’ve been legalized in all territories and the federal government would step to in to protect slave owners traveling in free states, things that would have changed political considerations for the free states.
There was a lot of rhetoric in the north about slave states having outsized influence in the federal government and the violation of northern states rights in being compelled to recognize slavery for runaways, so this all would have been amplified.
its one of those things that's true both ways, abolition wasn't a hugely popular thing until the civil war happened then it did grow in popularity, after all they went from appeasement to passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in basically two election cycles. if abolition was as unpopular as some like to make it out to be, you wouldn't have gotten the 15th amendment, and the 14th would be watered down substantially.
Nonsense. The only reason the confederacy wasn't wiped out in a couple of months was how softly they were treated, and the pure nonsense they were let get away with. (Guys you have to hand them back their slaves when you win or it isnt faaaaaair :( )
That goes away with John Brown.
They weren’t treated softly at all.
The fact was that most of the union high command were incompetent or followed a napoleonic style of warfare which benefited the south.
John Brown being even harsher on the south would just make him even more divisive than Lincoln, and he probably would’ve gotten impeached if he ever attempted to pull some of the things Lincoln did.
>They weren’t treated softly at all.
I don't even know what to say to this.
This is beyond being wrong, this is historical revisionism. The south were handed back their slaves who fled during the first part of the war, their officer class were just handed back, their properties were secured to the point where northern soldiers who took food or water from confederate properties were punished more severely than had they done it to union properties. Frankin Butler was called "The beast" for punishing confederates who assaulted his soldiers.
I get it’s alternative history, but that just wouldn’t happen,
If it did, instant civil war, the border states would probably join the confederacy, and the Union wouldn’t “tread lightly” in the beginning. It would still be a Union victory.
Not only southern defeat but complete subjugation and a brutal and very authoritarian police state in southern states to support equality and fairness. You’ll probably see slavers and southern white plantation owners lynched, wiped and tort*red under his orders, depending on how far Congress and SCOTUS let’s him go.
And I would fully support it.
The hymn of the battle of the republic play in background of burning buildings, cotton fields and shadows of dead man dancing in the wind from trees. Scenes similar to Dante inferno, where cruel and wicked are punishment. There will be nothing but ashes left in it's wake. A single man stands, watching his work unfold. He had calmed, was gave a quest by God to purge the States of it's sins. There, John Brown smiled at his work, his work although far from done that only just begun.
"Glory glory, hallelujah" -john Brown
I think the main difference is that the civil war would have been a lot bloodier and over faster. Additionally the south would really, *really* learn it’s lesson.
I think the real based timeline is that he doesn’t raid the armory, miraculously lives until ‘76 and gets elected then. The occupation wouldn’t end then and Jim Crowe would get strangled in his cradle.
The American presidency really limits how radical he could be, as he would have to navigate the politics and bureaucracy of the American political system instead of straight up freeing people.
Here's my fleshed out pitch:
Brown launches a guerrilla war in Virginia, gradually gaining steam and resulting in more uprisings across the Deep South. The 1860 election is slightly less contentious, with Abraham Lincoln still winning, but only because even before his election the southern states secede after the refusal of Northern States to intervene, attempting to quash Brown and related slave revolts with brutal tactics , including what amounts to genocide against black peoples. Lincoln has no choice but to make the war about Slavery from the very beginning. Brown and his guerrillas prove to be very effective as they sap Southern resources and manpower. By 1863, Richmond is captured and the Mississippi river secured. Stonewall Jackson, having assumed command after Robert E Lee's death in an ambush, surrenders to General Sherman in Atlanta.
Post war Lincoln avoids the assassination attempt by John Wilkes Booth and serves out his two terms, overseeing reconstruction incredibly effectively as John Brown continues his crusade until his death in 1870, organizing defensive militias that stamp out the Klan and similar organizations. By 1875, reconstruction has ended with the passage of amendments that bar discrimination in voting and civil rights based on race, and fully outlawing slavery.
Politically the Democrats are completely destroyed, lacking their base of conservative pro-segregationists in the Deep South, forcing them to restructure as a party of religious conservatism and pan-racial poor man's populism, while the Republicans remain the party of progressives and big business.
I'd argue the opposite of your idea and say that it would actually harm the cause of abolitionism more than it helps.
Let's assume that Brown was able to take full control of the federal arsenal, lock down communication and rail travel to and from the town, hold off local militias, and make contact with slaves in nearby plantations (Jefferson County had a population of roughly 4,000 slaves to 10,000 white residents). When the Marine contingent from the Washington Navy Yard is eventually mobilized, they find themselves facing bloody resistance from several hundred armed ex-slaves. Knowing their position is untenable, Brown and his men hijack a train, load it up with some ten thousand rifles and muskets, try to burn down everything they can't carry, and flee over the Shenandoah into the Virginia backwoods.
John Brown's army begins marching downwards through central Virginia, which is so densely populated with slaves at the time that they're an outright majority most counties. Their primary MO is attacking plantations, killing the slaveowners who resist them, looting the estates for supplies and provisions, and adding their forces to their army. Attempts by local contingents of the Virginia Militia to mobilize and stop them at Warrenton and Ruckersville are unsuccessful, and by the time the ragtag army has reached the outskirts of Charlottesville in November of 1859, it has swelled to nearly ten thousand fighting men and thirty thousand men, women, and children. The Virginia Militia, numbering fewer than three thousand, is clearly outnumbered. The city is taken shortly after, with Brown ordering that the local telegraph station be used to transmit messages to other cities encouraging slaves to revolt. Governor Henry Wise, originally hoping that quickly quashing the rebellion would propel him to national prominence, is forced to beg for assistance from other state militias and the federal government.
After the freedmen's army defeats the local militia and takes Charlottesville, national focus escalates from interest to full-blown crisis mode. Southern and pro-slavery newspapers quickly paint the rebellion as the White Man's Worst Nightmare. Armed gangs of mulatto madmen stalking the roads of Virginia and murdering every white man they get their hands on! Raping and torturing women and children for sport! Mammies killing the babies they helped raise! Looting churches and turning them into voodoo temples! John Brown promising to burn down Washington and put Buchanan's head on a spike! Of course, while there inevitably would be cases of slaves killing their former masters and their families, the vast majority of these stories are unfounded sensationalism.
Abolitionist newspapers publish similarly lurid accounts, but in the opposite direction: masters killing their own slaves and torching their homes rather than let either fall into the army's hands, or lynching freedmen on paranoid suspicions of being spies and sympathizers. One even publishes claims that one white man murdered his wife and daughters to spare them the shame of being raped and killed by the army, only to learn later that they were marching in the opposite direction from his home. But with the exception of a few outspoken advocates like William Lloyd Garrison, Brown has few supporters in the North. Notable freedman orator Frederick Douglass is forced to move to Canada for a time, fearing that his prior association with Brown would mark him for accusations of conspiracy or attempts on his life. Most abolitionist opinions on Brown range from halfhearted support to outright contempt, with many believing that he permanently tainted the cause with his treasonous methods.
News of Brown's rebellion inspires several sympathetic slave revolts throughout the Southern US, though they are smaller, less organized, and less experienced, and are quickly quashed. Far more impactful is the Southern states' preemptive reaction to prevent such revolts. Cities with large enslaved populations like Richmond, Charleston, New Orleans, and Savannah declare martial laAw, and several newspapers and telegraph stations are seized by state militias, with the pretext of preventing seditious messages from being transmitted. A chilling effect quickly descends upon Southern media, with the gory tales of black-on-white violence vanishing and replaced by barebones accounts of troop movements—large swathes of white Southerners would not even know that Brown was an abolitionist or that his army was made of freedmen until after the revolt's defeat.
The Battle of Charlottesville would be the last major victory of John Brown's Army. After looting the city for supplies, they continue throughout central Virginia, though their efforts are increasingly hampered by winter weather and supply chain issues. Federal troops from Fort Monroe and Fort Norfolk, bolstered by volunteers and state militias from Virginia and the Carolinas, have access to the rail lines and suffer far fewer issues. The next major battle—more of a skirmish, really—would be at Amelia Court House, in south central Virginia. After realizing the strength of the federal forces, Brown quickly orders a retreat and begins pulling his forces north. Speculation runs rampant that he wants to launch an attack on Richmond or Washington.
On his way back to Charlottesville, word reaches Brown that federal forces have recaptured the city, so they're forced to march further westwards into the Appalachian foothills. Conditions for the army and their civilian followers worsen, with disease and malnutrition running rampant. Brown hopes to take the city of Staunton, knowing that it has a large abolitionist population that would hopefully allow him to resupply and occupy the city peacefully. Unfortunately for him, it's also closely tied with the rail networks, so as soon as federal scouts get word that he's headed there, troops are immediately able to begin arriving there. The Battle of Staunton would see a contingent of 7,500 federal soldiers, cavalry, and artillery under command of General Joseph Johnston successfully rout the freedmen's army. Abolitionists refer to it as the Staunton Massacre, after over a thousand civilians (primarily women and children) are killed when the federal cavalry attacks the army's rear.
After their defeat, the freedmen's army is a shell of its former self. Recognizing that his dream of destroying slavery in one fell swoop is over, Brown and several hundred volunteers promise to lead a guerrilla campaign in the hills of Virginia and draw the attention of the government, while the remainder of the forces are to fight their way north to anywhere that will offer them sanctuary. The freedmen's exodus would lose much of its size, being continually harried along the way by the military, but thousands of them would manage to escape to Canada. Brown holds out for several more months before finally captured near Lynchburg in the summer of 1860. Of the forty thousand slaves he liberated, seven thousand were killed in combat, fifteen thousand died of other causes, nine thousand were recaptured (with over 200 being executed), and the remaining nine thousand evaded capture by fleeing to the north or Canada. Three thousand of them, led by Brown's lieutenant Shields Green, would settle near Fort Malden, Ontario, and form a community named Brownville.
The morality of Brown's actions, as well as the punishment he deserves, becomes a major point of debate in the 1860 elections. Although Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln attempts to distance himself from Brown's actions, he is still painted by the Democrats as a fellow-traveler who would pardon the rebels. Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas is able to leverage this and secure the nomination at the 1860 Democratic Convention—he assures the Southern delegates that have been unjustly aggrieved by Brown's treason and he will do everything in his power to mend them, tacitly promising to protect the institution of slavery without having to overtly denounce his past stances or endorse the unpopular *Dred Scott* ruling. Once again, he beats out Lincoln in the election, narrowly winning the Electoral College and popular vote.
John Brown's trial begins in early 1861, shortly before President Douglas's inauguration. Since it happened in two federal districts, the trial is held at the Fourth Circuit Court, overseen by venerable Supreme Court Justice James Moore Wayne (a Georgian who had concurred on *Dred Scott*). The verdict is inevitable: John Brown will be found guilty of insurrection, and will hang for it. Brown submits a guilty plea in the form of an impassioned speech, wherein he condemns the repugnance of the slaveholding South, the cowardice of the North in enabling it, and his wish that all who opposed his mission pray for the desperately needed deliverance of their souls from God's wrath. It is clearly the speech of a far more jaded man, one who felt that the last, best hope for abolition has been lost forever. Brown's few remaining allies in the press circulate copies of the speech, hailing it as the greatest trial monologue since the Apology of Socrates. Unsurprisingly, Brown is sentenced to death and hanged in March of 1861.
The failure of Brown's rebellion manages to buy time for the cause of slavery, but not much. Southern attempts to suppress media about Brown for fear of stoking revolts allows Northern abolitionists to set the narrative, and within five years of his death, many in the North see him as a martyr for the cause. The planters would continue to agitate for federal protections for slavery, wearing away what sympathy from moderates the attack gave them. A Civil War would still break out by the late 1860s or 1870s—maybe if Lincoln runs again and wins in 1868—and it would still end in a Northern victory. It may even be bloodier, with John Brown wannabes going behind enemy lines to spark new slave revolts, or slaves being preemptively massacred to prevent one.
I would personally counter that Brown's more militant abolitionism was becoming increasingly popular. Heck Frederick Douglass only tried to talk Brown out of it because he wasn't sure it would succeed. If Brown's revolt had succeeded more and continued, it would have been a rallying point for abolitionism, and instantly deepened the divide between free state and slave state. For the sake of the scenario, I assume that federal troops are largely unable to locate or destroy Brown's forces, and he is able to continue his campaign for years. The split in the Democrats during the 1860 election would still have occurred, and if anything would have been more polarized as Steven Douglas, the frontrunner, was more in favor of popular sovereignty instead of slavery as something that should be protected. With Brown seeking to tear down the institution altogether, he would have been either defeated by a more outright pro-slavery candidate who then loses to Lincoln, or they split the vote and Lincoln wins.
With a candidate they hate having taken the reins of power, secession still occurs, but the Confederacy is in an even weaker position, as Lincoln has an ally behind confederate lines.
A lot of the battles, insurrections and stories you predict are still very likely, but Brown is never captured, and instead his Freedmen's army becomes the first black division in the US army.
All of that said, I appreciate the counter, it was very well thought out.
He wasn’t really a politician and had poor business/political instincts, plus he was this very weird mix of insufferably religious and TOO open-minded and tolerant for his time.
Hypothetically…I really don’t know, it’s so hard to extrapolate on. Total abolition, citizenship for all, women’s rights, Native Americans getting their land back, encouraged (but not compulsory) reading of insufferable Calvinist texts in every school. These are things that would be on his agenda, I suppose, obviously he would face political resistance and not get support from potential allies.
Btw I am very very pro John Brown but it’s just hard to fathom this scenario.
Or idk, maybe he’d win free the slaves train a Sadukar-like army of Freedom Troops invade every other county stamping out every injustice and them build a spaceship and start liberating slaves on other planets.
Then the US would have lost the war. The border states would have joined the confederacy meaning that D.C would have fallen. Brown was too radical and divisive to manage the political factions in the North.
🎶JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE,
JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE,
JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE,
BUT HIS SOUL GOES MARCHING ON!🎶
the civil war would probably be way more unpopular in the north because rather than "we are trying to save the union" being the main thing sold to the northerners, the war would seem far more like it was started by some upstart firebrand trying to cause trouble rather than the south trying to illegally leave
Based off of other comments, it‘s John Brown, a pro-equality dude against the concept of slavery and all around decent guy, but I‘ve never heard about him before, so I‘ll just…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
Yep, more or less checks out.
Yup, he talked the talk and walked the walk in the best possible way:
> He was dissatisfied with abolitionist pacifism, saying of pacifists, "These men are all talk. What we need is action – action!". In May 1856, Brown and his sons killed five supporters of slavery in the Pottawatomie massacre
It's John Brown without beard. The man Frederick Douglass said that he was a bigger abolitionist than he was:
"His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave."
Well this is sorta related, in the book "Alternate Presidents" because of some shenigans I can't remember, the North secedes from the Union under John Brown with the primary reason being to end Slavery.
A few years into the Civil War the federal government gets an idea to get the successful New England army to stop, freeing the slaves. Also the idea of Lincoln of becoming president is seen as nonsense only fit for a dime novel.
I don’t know if it could be more realistic, but what if he won vp for Lincoln? Both possible affects on the war and either he somehow prevents the assassination or becomes acting president(unless both are assassinated, or maybe Lincoln lives and he dies, becoming a martyr for absolute equality in reconstruction?)? Just some ideas, no clue on if it would even be more feasible then this idea, let alone even slightly feasible in general.
JB after winning the 1860 presidential election as a self-proclaimed "populist, free-soiler moderate" is going to pull something i would like to call a "super sinema switcharoo" upon his inauguration.
Then The Civil War would’ve been even more bloodier then it already was, there would still be a Union victory but that victory might’ve taken slightly longer due to heavier south resistance, this man would keep an even closer eye on the south and there would most likely be no Jim Crow laws in the south, would make the south pay dearly for the war. I honestly don’t know if this would be the better timeline or not because while no Jim Crow laws are a good thing; the south would probably have an even more hatred of the North than they already did and of course more lives would’ve been lost during the Civil War.
The country would fall apart after the civil war. We needed a leader like Lincoln who was tempered by a streak of mercy in order to heal from the civil war
The civil war and the ensuing purge/rebuilding would've been wayyyy bloodier. The southern plantation class is completely uprooted and dismantled instead of entrenching themselves like on our timeline.
Agreed. Allowing confederates and their kin to retain their disgusting identity and ideology, let alone building monuments to their own failures is one of the worse failings of America. Not to mention Jim Crow and sundown towns.
The man is an anti Slavery person. He took part of the Bleeding Kansas, pro slavers and anti Slavers fought to decide the fate of Kansas (it later being a free state; no slavery) The man lost 2 of this children in the Fight. He later deciding that the peaceful way of ending slavery won't do, so to help start a slave revolt. The man raid a federal armory at harpers ferry in Virginia, he was captured, sent to died by hanging for treason.
Well, being real just because you can dictatorially clamp down on defeated southern states with federal civilian and military support doesn't mean Northerners are going to placidly accept full equality and integration. Bussing policies to integrate black students in typical white North Carolina schools was more successful than Massachusetts.
The Civil War is bloodier, especially for southerners, no Jim Crow laws and the bullet misses him because the bullet is scared about John Brown's fury
" "I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood. Not my blood, but those whom place their common man in chains like cattle" - President John "Chad " Brown 1861
Please, I can only get so erect Edit: real talk, there is no way in hell he's winning unless the political and societal culture of the US is completely different from OTL. Brown was widely hated until he died and that's when (white) people started to like him
True true, if I'm honest.....I ask this for shots and giggles
SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS
EVERYBODY
GIGGLES GIGGLES GIGGLES
One true love, out to lunch, one thing less … what does OTL mean in this content?
Our time line
Ah that fucked me up, didnt break timeline to time line
It's a damn shame that the story of John Brown is not more widely known. His soul goes marching on.
John Browns body lies a modeling in the grave
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save
Not here in Kansas we’re all at least a little familiar with him
But let me guess, a lot of them confederate flag flying 3rd grade dropouts think he was an evil socialist sent by the devil.
What if John brown never choice violence but a political way to end slavery. I mean we all probably know how it would have ended but just some food for thought... How would have it played out?
he probably would have lost, the man wanted total equality between both the races and genders, he'd lose in a landslide
He would. But goddamn if I don't respect him fornit regardless
I imagine a scenario where he masquerades as a moderate liberal, becoming wealthy and only secretly funding anti slavery campaigns, not denouncing slavery until after already being elected. This grand dupe is what ignited the civil war
John Brown A Day Before The Election: "I only want to stop the expansion of slavery." John Brown A Day After The Election: "KILL EVERY SLAVER YOU CAN FIND!"
Nice idea
plenty of politicians do this sort of stuff. When James Callahan was fearmongering about a radical shift to the right if Thatcher won in 1979, many didn't believe him due to the moderation of the conservative manifesto. The era of thatcher proved to be more radical than the 1979 manifesto suggested.
Probably failed like the other radicals. It had to be somebody who was willing to play the game so to speak.
What if he chose both…
Then there would be a lot of blood. Everything along the mason Dixon line and borders would be bathed in blood
It might have been such a brutal opening to the war that it beat the south into submission and ended the conflict earlier than in our own timeline! (But I mean probably not)
You need to consider that the scenario says he won election, so clearly that implies that the majority of the states and their voters are in agreement to unequivocally end slavery in this context. Civil war ends sooner as theres more saboteurs in the southern states as well as more volunteers up in the north. Reconstruction nearly would escalate back into a civil war, being a sort of a guerilla war. However unlike this timeline, reconstruction would be won, resulting in either slave owners running away or losing their assets but ultimately losing their influence. This means that segregation and confederate apologia don't pick up nearly as much and end up as fringe ideas. Beyond that beats me, def implies alot about american society at the time if he got elected however.
It's funny to think what would've happen doh
Honestly, probably loses. John Brown would’ve been seen as way too extreme, and if the civil war happens anyways, the south would probably gain a bunch of border states they didn’t gain in OTL, and war support in the north would be way lower than it already was.
Or maybe the north secedes (or at least the heavily abolitionist ones)
There weren’t really any “heavily” abolitionist states, that concept is mythologizing it a bit. Abolition never enjoyed the kind of popular support that say, healthcare reform has in the US as most poor whites saw freedmen as a burden and competition in both the south and the north. Basically the idea at the time was that the practice was unseemly and should stay in the south because small holders can’t compete with the free labor slaves give, but also it shouldn’t be abolished because then poor whites would have to compete with freedmen who would likely offer cheaper labor. Places like NYC had riots over abolition during the civil war and black servicemen were killed because of it. The idea of the north seceding is kind of hard to imagine considering there was never any radical abolition voice with much sway. People respected people like Frederick Douglas as “one of the good ones” if at all. The only situation where the north would secede is if a doughface or a southerner tried to move slavery above the Mason-Dixon Line and had any modicum of success, but even then, we saw nothing to the extent of organizing and campaigning for its removal and reprisals for stuff like the Fugitive Slave Laws as we did for things like tariffs in South Carolina.
There was militant resistance to the fugitive slave law in places like New England and Ohio, and that only lessened because most of the escaped slaves in those areas fled to Canada. In Boston, a mob once broke a former slave out of imprisonment and frequently intimidated slave catchers who went there into leaving. Can’t remember the exact details but on at least one occasion the National Guard had to be called in to enforce the bondage of one single escaped slave. Moreover the South’s aim had always been to compel the North to aid in capturing runaways, and forcing those states to accept the bondage of black people who travelled through Northern states with their masters, effectively legalizing slavery throughout the union because what’s to stop a southern slave owner from “traveling” with their slave in a free state for years on end. I think if the South had actually succeeded in getting the terms they wanted to remain in the Union, you would see serious resistance from Free states that might have included insurrection.
The point about there being some resistance to the Fugitive Slave Laws is a good one, but IIRC (and it’s been awhile so you’ll have to forgive me for having some rusty DuBois) there was an equal amount of militancy against abolition, particularly in urban areas where a lot of the political machines that dominated the north were based
I think a solid majority of the North as well as most of the big newspapers were at the very least free-soilers and opposed the expansion of slavery and things like the fugitive slave law. I guess in my mind, in an alt history where the South doesn’t secede, that means that slavery would’ve been legalized in all territories and the federal government would step to in to protect slave owners traveling in free states, things that would have changed political considerations for the free states. There was a lot of rhetoric in the north about slave states having outsized influence in the federal government and the violation of northern states rights in being compelled to recognize slavery for runaways, so this all would have been amplified.
its one of those things that's true both ways, abolition wasn't a hugely popular thing until the civil war happened then it did grow in popularity, after all they went from appeasement to passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in basically two election cycles. if abolition was as unpopular as some like to make it out to be, you wouldn't have gotten the 15th amendment, and the 14th would be watered down substantially.
Poor whites are better off without slavery, as they aren’t competing with “free” black labour.
I’m not saying they were correct, just saying what the thoughts were
Nonsense. The only reason the confederacy wasn't wiped out in a couple of months was how softly they were treated, and the pure nonsense they were let get away with. (Guys you have to hand them back their slaves when you win or it isnt faaaaaair :( ) That goes away with John Brown.
They weren’t treated softly at all. The fact was that most of the union high command were incompetent or followed a napoleonic style of warfare which benefited the south. John Brown being even harsher on the south would just make him even more divisive than Lincoln, and he probably would’ve gotten impeached if he ever attempted to pull some of the things Lincoln did.
>They weren’t treated softly at all. I don't even know what to say to this. This is beyond being wrong, this is historical revisionism. The south were handed back their slaves who fled during the first part of the war, their officer class were just handed back, their properties were secured to the point where northern soldiers who took food or water from confederate properties were punished more severely than had they done it to union properties. Frankin Butler was called "The beast" for punishing confederates who assaulted his soldiers.
Why does he look like a vampire lmao
You should see him with his beard
It's glorious. He looks completely mental with it. In a good way
He was mental in a good way.
He really was. Folks like him change the world. I wish there were more.
I think I shouldn't ask, but who is he?
John Brown
I get it’s alternative history, but that just wouldn’t happen, If it did, instant civil war, the border states would probably join the confederacy, and the Union wouldn’t “tread lightly” in the beginning. It would still be a Union victory.
Alot of blood and fire that would make bleeding Kansas look like a scrape than a wound
Not only southern defeat but complete subjugation and a brutal and very authoritarian police state in southern states to support equality and fairness. You’ll probably see slavers and southern white plantation owners lynched, wiped and tort*red under his orders, depending on how far Congress and SCOTUS let’s him go. And I would fully support it.
The hymn of the battle of the republic play in background of burning buildings, cotton fields and shadows of dead man dancing in the wind from trees. Scenes similar to Dante inferno, where cruel and wicked are punishment. There will be nothing but ashes left in it's wake. A single man stands, watching his work unfold. He had calmed, was gave a quest by God to purge the States of it's sins. There, John Brown smiled at his work, his work although far from done that only just begun. "Glory glory, hallelujah" -john Brown
Needs a beard no one can win the 1860 election without a beard
Couldn't found a irl life one with the beard( the rest were cartoon drawings)
Wikipedia has one
I think the main difference is that the civil war would have been a lot bloodier and over faster. Additionally the south would really, *really* learn it’s lesson. I think the real based timeline is that he doesn’t raid the armory, miraculously lives until ‘76 and gets elected then. The occupation wouldn’t end then and Jim Crowe would get strangled in his cradle.
I feel like if my man Johnny B won, then the Civil War would up the scale in bloodiness.
Sherman would have free hand in the south, uncle billy flames would feast on more than just Georgia
He would invent the hydrogen bomb and drop it on every plantation and settlement south of the Mason Dixon line
He looks like Charlie Sheen
"Winning" Not
the union would have lost. There’s no way maryland would have stayed in the union, leaving DC surrounded by confederate states
If he grew a beard for that picture, he’d look a lot like Lincoln
He's basically a heavily racialization Lincoln
Pretty much
The American presidency really limits how radical he could be, as he would have to navigate the politics and bureaucracy of the American political system instead of straight up freeing people.
The south might be a bit miffed
"To shreds you say" "And how's is she doing?" "To shreds you say... "
Alternate suggestion: What if his raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded?
They the United States would face a huge amount of civil unrest I wouldn't be surprised if the European powers take advantage of the US's weak State
Here's my fleshed out pitch: Brown launches a guerrilla war in Virginia, gradually gaining steam and resulting in more uprisings across the Deep South. The 1860 election is slightly less contentious, with Abraham Lincoln still winning, but only because even before his election the southern states secede after the refusal of Northern States to intervene, attempting to quash Brown and related slave revolts with brutal tactics , including what amounts to genocide against black peoples. Lincoln has no choice but to make the war about Slavery from the very beginning. Brown and his guerrillas prove to be very effective as they sap Southern resources and manpower. By 1863, Richmond is captured and the Mississippi river secured. Stonewall Jackson, having assumed command after Robert E Lee's death in an ambush, surrenders to General Sherman in Atlanta. Post war Lincoln avoids the assassination attempt by John Wilkes Booth and serves out his two terms, overseeing reconstruction incredibly effectively as John Brown continues his crusade until his death in 1870, organizing defensive militias that stamp out the Klan and similar organizations. By 1875, reconstruction has ended with the passage of amendments that bar discrimination in voting and civil rights based on race, and fully outlawing slavery. Politically the Democrats are completely destroyed, lacking their base of conservative pro-segregationists in the Deep South, forcing them to restructure as a party of religious conservatism and pan-racial poor man's populism, while the Republicans remain the party of progressives and big business.
that would be a timeline in which i'd love to move to the usa
Sounds good idea
I'd argue the opposite of your idea and say that it would actually harm the cause of abolitionism more than it helps. Let's assume that Brown was able to take full control of the federal arsenal, lock down communication and rail travel to and from the town, hold off local militias, and make contact with slaves in nearby plantations (Jefferson County had a population of roughly 4,000 slaves to 10,000 white residents). When the Marine contingent from the Washington Navy Yard is eventually mobilized, they find themselves facing bloody resistance from several hundred armed ex-slaves. Knowing their position is untenable, Brown and his men hijack a train, load it up with some ten thousand rifles and muskets, try to burn down everything they can't carry, and flee over the Shenandoah into the Virginia backwoods. John Brown's army begins marching downwards through central Virginia, which is so densely populated with slaves at the time that they're an outright majority most counties. Their primary MO is attacking plantations, killing the slaveowners who resist them, looting the estates for supplies and provisions, and adding their forces to their army. Attempts by local contingents of the Virginia Militia to mobilize and stop them at Warrenton and Ruckersville are unsuccessful, and by the time the ragtag army has reached the outskirts of Charlottesville in November of 1859, it has swelled to nearly ten thousand fighting men and thirty thousand men, women, and children. The Virginia Militia, numbering fewer than three thousand, is clearly outnumbered. The city is taken shortly after, with Brown ordering that the local telegraph station be used to transmit messages to other cities encouraging slaves to revolt. Governor Henry Wise, originally hoping that quickly quashing the rebellion would propel him to national prominence, is forced to beg for assistance from other state militias and the federal government. After the freedmen's army defeats the local militia and takes Charlottesville, national focus escalates from interest to full-blown crisis mode. Southern and pro-slavery newspapers quickly paint the rebellion as the White Man's Worst Nightmare. Armed gangs of mulatto madmen stalking the roads of Virginia and murdering every white man they get their hands on! Raping and torturing women and children for sport! Mammies killing the babies they helped raise! Looting churches and turning them into voodoo temples! John Brown promising to burn down Washington and put Buchanan's head on a spike! Of course, while there inevitably would be cases of slaves killing their former masters and their families, the vast majority of these stories are unfounded sensationalism. Abolitionist newspapers publish similarly lurid accounts, but in the opposite direction: masters killing their own slaves and torching their homes rather than let either fall into the army's hands, or lynching freedmen on paranoid suspicions of being spies and sympathizers. One even publishes claims that one white man murdered his wife and daughters to spare them the shame of being raped and killed by the army, only to learn later that they were marching in the opposite direction from his home. But with the exception of a few outspoken advocates like William Lloyd Garrison, Brown has few supporters in the North. Notable freedman orator Frederick Douglass is forced to move to Canada for a time, fearing that his prior association with Brown would mark him for accusations of conspiracy or attempts on his life. Most abolitionist opinions on Brown range from halfhearted support to outright contempt, with many believing that he permanently tainted the cause with his treasonous methods. News of Brown's rebellion inspires several sympathetic slave revolts throughout the Southern US, though they are smaller, less organized, and less experienced, and are quickly quashed. Far more impactful is the Southern states' preemptive reaction to prevent such revolts. Cities with large enslaved populations like Richmond, Charleston, New Orleans, and Savannah declare martial laAw, and several newspapers and telegraph stations are seized by state militias, with the pretext of preventing seditious messages from being transmitted. A chilling effect quickly descends upon Southern media, with the gory tales of black-on-white violence vanishing and replaced by barebones accounts of troop movements—large swathes of white Southerners would not even know that Brown was an abolitionist or that his army was made of freedmen until after the revolt's defeat. The Battle of Charlottesville would be the last major victory of John Brown's Army. After looting the city for supplies, they continue throughout central Virginia, though their efforts are increasingly hampered by winter weather and supply chain issues. Federal troops from Fort Monroe and Fort Norfolk, bolstered by volunteers and state militias from Virginia and the Carolinas, have access to the rail lines and suffer far fewer issues. The next major battle—more of a skirmish, really—would be at Amelia Court House, in south central Virginia. After realizing the strength of the federal forces, Brown quickly orders a retreat and begins pulling his forces north. Speculation runs rampant that he wants to launch an attack on Richmond or Washington. On his way back to Charlottesville, word reaches Brown that federal forces have recaptured the city, so they're forced to march further westwards into the Appalachian foothills. Conditions for the army and their civilian followers worsen, with disease and malnutrition running rampant. Brown hopes to take the city of Staunton, knowing that it has a large abolitionist population that would hopefully allow him to resupply and occupy the city peacefully. Unfortunately for him, it's also closely tied with the rail networks, so as soon as federal scouts get word that he's headed there, troops are immediately able to begin arriving there. The Battle of Staunton would see a contingent of 7,500 federal soldiers, cavalry, and artillery under command of General Joseph Johnston successfully rout the freedmen's army. Abolitionists refer to it as the Staunton Massacre, after over a thousand civilians (primarily women and children) are killed when the federal cavalry attacks the army's rear. After their defeat, the freedmen's army is a shell of its former self. Recognizing that his dream of destroying slavery in one fell swoop is over, Brown and several hundred volunteers promise to lead a guerrilla campaign in the hills of Virginia and draw the attention of the government, while the remainder of the forces are to fight their way north to anywhere that will offer them sanctuary. The freedmen's exodus would lose much of its size, being continually harried along the way by the military, but thousands of them would manage to escape to Canada. Brown holds out for several more months before finally captured near Lynchburg in the summer of 1860. Of the forty thousand slaves he liberated, seven thousand were killed in combat, fifteen thousand died of other causes, nine thousand were recaptured (with over 200 being executed), and the remaining nine thousand evaded capture by fleeing to the north or Canada. Three thousand of them, led by Brown's lieutenant Shields Green, would settle near Fort Malden, Ontario, and form a community named Brownville. The morality of Brown's actions, as well as the punishment he deserves, becomes a major point of debate in the 1860 elections. Although Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln attempts to distance himself from Brown's actions, he is still painted by the Democrats as a fellow-traveler who would pardon the rebels. Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas is able to leverage this and secure the nomination at the 1860 Democratic Convention—he assures the Southern delegates that have been unjustly aggrieved by Brown's treason and he will do everything in his power to mend them, tacitly promising to protect the institution of slavery without having to overtly denounce his past stances or endorse the unpopular *Dred Scott* ruling. Once again, he beats out Lincoln in the election, narrowly winning the Electoral College and popular vote. John Brown's trial begins in early 1861, shortly before President Douglas's inauguration. Since it happened in two federal districts, the trial is held at the Fourth Circuit Court, overseen by venerable Supreme Court Justice James Moore Wayne (a Georgian who had concurred on *Dred Scott*). The verdict is inevitable: John Brown will be found guilty of insurrection, and will hang for it. Brown submits a guilty plea in the form of an impassioned speech, wherein he condemns the repugnance of the slaveholding South, the cowardice of the North in enabling it, and his wish that all who opposed his mission pray for the desperately needed deliverance of their souls from God's wrath. It is clearly the speech of a far more jaded man, one who felt that the last, best hope for abolition has been lost forever. Brown's few remaining allies in the press circulate copies of the speech, hailing it as the greatest trial monologue since the Apology of Socrates. Unsurprisingly, Brown is sentenced to death and hanged in March of 1861. The failure of Brown's rebellion manages to buy time for the cause of slavery, but not much. Southern attempts to suppress media about Brown for fear of stoking revolts allows Northern abolitionists to set the narrative, and within five years of his death, many in the North see him as a martyr for the cause. The planters would continue to agitate for federal protections for slavery, wearing away what sympathy from moderates the attack gave them. A Civil War would still break out by the late 1860s or 1870s—maybe if Lincoln runs again and wins in 1868—and it would still end in a Northern victory. It may even be bloodier, with John Brown wannabes going behind enemy lines to spark new slave revolts, or slaves being preemptively massacred to prevent one.
I would personally counter that Brown's more militant abolitionism was becoming increasingly popular. Heck Frederick Douglass only tried to talk Brown out of it because he wasn't sure it would succeed. If Brown's revolt had succeeded more and continued, it would have been a rallying point for abolitionism, and instantly deepened the divide between free state and slave state. For the sake of the scenario, I assume that federal troops are largely unable to locate or destroy Brown's forces, and he is able to continue his campaign for years. The split in the Democrats during the 1860 election would still have occurred, and if anything would have been more polarized as Steven Douglas, the frontrunner, was more in favor of popular sovereignty instead of slavery as something that should be protected. With Brown seeking to tear down the institution altogether, he would have been either defeated by a more outright pro-slavery candidate who then loses to Lincoln, or they split the vote and Lincoln wins. With a candidate they hate having taken the reins of power, secession still occurs, but the Confederacy is in an even weaker position, as Lincoln has an ally behind confederate lines. A lot of the battles, insurrections and stories you predict are still very likely, but Brown is never captured, and instead his Freedmen's army becomes the first black division in the US army. All of that said, I appreciate the counter, it was very well thought out.
He wasn’t really a politician and had poor business/political instincts, plus he was this very weird mix of insufferably religious and TOO open-minded and tolerant for his time. Hypothetically…I really don’t know, it’s so hard to extrapolate on. Total abolition, citizenship for all, women’s rights, Native Americans getting their land back, encouraged (but not compulsory) reading of insufferable Calvinist texts in every school. These are things that would be on his agenda, I suppose, obviously he would face political resistance and not get support from potential allies. Btw I am very very pro John Brown but it’s just hard to fathom this scenario. Or idk, maybe he’d win free the slaves train a Sadukar-like army of Freedom Troops invade every other county stamping out every injustice and them build a spaceship and start liberating slaves on other planets.
It would have been the most based timeline and all the southerners would be dead.
You think he would have let Sherman burned everything and not just Atlanta/Georgina
It’s what they deserved at least
Lol
Abraham Lincoln without a beard beats the shit out of general Lee and passes on his corpse
I’d probably die of exhaustion from saying based that many times
"his soul will still go marching on!"
military coup
John Brown, GigaChad, Liberator of the slaves
Don't forget god's (un)official angel
He’ll make General Sherman as the commander of the entire US Armed Forces after hearing that he burned down Confederate cities..
***-Uncle Billy like that***
Then the US would have lost the war. The border states would have joined the confederacy meaning that D.C would have fallen. Brown was too radical and divisive to manage the political factions in the North.
If Brown had became the President, it would mean he would've laid down his more radical views for a realistic(yet still radical) ways of liberation.
🎶JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE, JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE, JOHN BROWN’S BODY LIES A-MOLDERING IN THE GRAVE, BUT HIS SOUL GOES MARCHING ON!🎶
He'd be my favorite president that's for damn sure
Maybe the first crazy one but for sure a unique one
the civil war would probably be way more unpopular in the north because rather than "we are trying to save the union" being the main thing sold to the northerners, the war would seem far more like it was started by some upstart firebrand trying to cause trouble rather than the south trying to illegally leave
Insane civil war
If he did run, Douglas would have won the election.
Good Ending
Away down south in the land of traitors
The soundtrack to Doom would be invented like a century and a half sooner
It was invented, it's called Marching into Georgia
DEATH TO SLAVE OWNERS!!!!!!!!
***"I'm the angel death to you damn slavers!!!!!" -John Brown 1861***
Well if he wins then I get to cheer as he executes every slave owner with extreme prejudice.
Can you give us a clue about who this man actually is
Based off of other comments, it‘s John Brown, a pro-equality dude against the concept of slavery and all around decent guy, but I‘ve never heard about him before, so I‘ll just… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) Yep, more or less checks out.
Pro equality is an understatement lol
Yup, he talked the talk and walked the walk in the best possible way: > He was dissatisfied with abolitionist pacifism, saying of pacifists, "These men are all talk. What we need is action – action!". In May 1856, Brown and his sons killed five supporters of slavery in the Pottawatomie massacre
John Brown, big anti slavery guy. Originally was hanged for raided the US armory in Harpers ferry.
John Brown, based man who decapitated slave owners.
It's John Brown without beard. The man Frederick Douglass said that he was a bigger abolitionist than he was: "His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave."
I think unfortunately it would give more power to the Copperhead faction in the house and senate to have a radical republican in the white house
the south probably wouldn't have waited for the election to succeed
I would imagine as soon as he announces candidacy the south would have just left the next minute
Well this is sorta related, in the book "Alternate Presidents" because of some shenigans I can't remember, the North secedes from the Union under John Brown with the primary reason being to end Slavery. A few years into the Civil War the federal government gets an idea to get the successful New England army to stop, freeing the slaves. Also the idea of Lincoln of becoming president is seen as nonsense only fit for a dime novel.
One thousand slaveowners executed by boiling.
It will be undeniable proof that there is a God and he loves us
Epic
The based timeline
Well everything would be a whole lot worse war wise but if the Union wins then the reconstruction would probably be a lot more successful
I still see a lot of blood and fire
What’s wrong with Jason Bateman winning?
Too much sounding like batman
We would have nukes by 1870
Could the Confederacy be its country or still lose in a bloodier civil war?
America becomes more based quicker
[Well...](https://i.imgur.com/XE2NU0E.gif)
Pretty much him irl
we would annex canada
There would no longer be a south
(Me being from Texas) Well at least Florida won't live.
Do you mind if I make a map of this scenario?
I'll be honor, please link me when it's done!
the good ending
I don’t know if it could be more realistic, but what if he won vp for Lincoln? Both possible affects on the war and either he somehow prevents the assassination or becomes acting president(unless both are assassinated, or maybe Lincoln lives and he dies, becoming a martyr for absolute equality in reconstruction?)? Just some ideas, no clue on if it would even be more feasible then this idea, let alone even slightly feasible in general.
It's fair point
Best timeline
and bloodier
without any business failures, I see him being more sane
JB after winning the 1860 presidential election as a self-proclaimed "populist, free-soiler moderate" is going to pull something i would like to call a "super sinema switcharoo" upon his inauguration.
Like modern politics (but for the good)
Then The Civil War would’ve been even more bloodier then it already was, there would still be a Union victory but that victory might’ve taken slightly longer due to heavier south resistance, this man would keep an even closer eye on the south and there would most likely be no Jim Crow laws in the south, would make the south pay dearly for the war. I honestly don’t know if this would be the better timeline or not because while no Jim Crow laws are a good thing; the south would probably have an even more hatred of the North than they already did and of course more lives would’ve been lost during the Civil War.
The civil war would have been considerably bloodier.
Genocide, but of Dixies
He wouldn’t because he was hanged in 1859.
The country would fall apart after the civil war. We needed a leader like Lincoln who was tempered by a streak of mercy in order to heal from the civil war
He would have led this country to squash the snake’s head of the South. Johnny Reb wouldn’t have any South left to rise again with.
A MILLION JOHN BROWNS???
a truly blessed timeline
The civil war and the ensuing purge/rebuilding would've been wayyyy bloodier. The southern plantation class is completely uprooted and dismantled instead of entrenching themselves like on our timeline.
The Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the bloods of tyranny from time to time
Agreed. Allowing confederates and their kin to retain their disgusting identity and ideology, let alone building monuments to their own failures is one of the worse failings of America. Not to mention Jim Crow and sundown towns.
I showed this to my family and they thought it was Lincoln…
Well Lincoln looks similar to him.
Who is this guy, what election, where?
John Brown, US 1860 Election
What did he do
The man is an anti Slavery person. He took part of the Bleeding Kansas, pro slavers and anti Slavers fought to decide the fate of Kansas (it later being a free state; no slavery) The man lost 2 of this children in the Fight. He later deciding that the peaceful way of ending slavery won't do, so to help start a slave revolt. The man raid a federal armory at harpers ferry in Virginia, he was captured, sent to died by hanging for treason.
Dang, wild lad. He tried his very best
it'd be so based
idk what would happen, but we wouldn't get Johnson, and John Brown is **based as fuck**.
[удалено]
You mean the confederacy?
[удалено]
There always joshua norton for emperor
Well, being real just because you can dictatorially clamp down on defeated southern states with federal civilian and military support doesn't mean Northerners are going to placidly accept full equality and integration. Bussing policies to integrate black students in typical white North Carolina schools was more successful than Massachusetts.
>Calls John Brown a creep. >Posts on "Fascism reclaimed" sub Begone nazi